Saturday, March 16, 2013

Okay, maybe not my favorite president. I'm not exactly a presidential scholar. It's hard to top George Washington, walking away from power the way he did. But I love Calvin Coolidge's attitude. Absolutely love it.

This piece is adapted from a talk at Hillsdale College, by Amity Shlaes, author of Coolidge.

An alternative model for conservatives is Calvin Coolidge. President from 1923 to 1929, Coolidge sustained a budget surplus and left office with a smaller budget than the one he inherited. Over the same period, America experienced a proliferation of jobs, a dramatic increase in the standard of living, higher wages, and three to four percent annual economic growth. And the key to this was Coolidge’s penchant for saying “no.” If Reagan was the Great Communicator, Coolidge was the Great Refrainer.

In doing research for my new biography of Coolidge, I reviewed his presidential appointment books and found a clue as to why he was able to be so consistent: sheer discipline. Coolidge and his budget director met every Friday morning before cabinet meetings to identify budget cuts and discuss how to say “no” to the requests of cabinet members. Most presidents give in after a time—Eisenhower being a good example—but Coolidge did not, despite the budget surpluses during his presidency. He held 14 meetings with his budget director after coming to office in late 1923, 55 meetings in 1924, 52 in 1925, 63 in 1926, and 51 in 1927.

The key here, in my opinion, is to understand the true reason for tax cuts. If you're doing it to get more government revenue then you're doing it for the wrong idea.

Speaking of tax rates, in December 1923, Coolidge and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon launched a campaign to lower top rates from the fifties to the twenties. Mellon believed, and informed Coolidge, that these cuts might result in additional revenue. This was referred to as “scientific taxation”—an early formulation of the Laffer Curve. And Coolidge passed the word on: “Experience does not show that the higher rate produces the larger revenue. Experience is all the other way,” he said in a speech in early 1924. “When the surtax on incomes of $300,000 and over was but 10 percent, the revenue was about the same as it was at 65 percent.”

Mellon and Coolidge did not win all they sought. The top rate of the final law was in the forties. But even this reduction yielded results—more money flowing into the Treasury—suggesting that “scientific taxation” worked. By 1926, Coolidge was able to sign legislation that brought the top marginal rate down to 25 percent, and to do so retroactively.

Today’s Republicans tend to take pleasure when the Laffer Curve is vindicated and more money flows into government as a result of tax cuts. Indeed, this idea of “scientific taxation” is often used to attempt to get Democrats to go along with tax cuts, as if those cuts are an end in themselves. By contrast, the specter of increased federal revenue rendered Coolidge anxious, personally and politically—so much so that he considered foregoing the rate cuts: “While I am exceedingly interested in having tax reduction . . . it can only be brought about as a result of economy,” he said at one point. He would not put tax cuts before budget reduction, insisting on twinning the two goals.

In short, Coolidge didn’t favor tax cuts as a means to increase revenue or to buy off Democrats. He favored them because they took government, the people’s servant, out of the way of the people. And this sense of government as servant extended to his own office. Senator Selden Spencer once took a walk with Coolidge around the White House grounds. To cheer the President up, Spencer pointed to the White House and asked playfully, “Who lives there?” “Nobody,” Coolidge replied. “They just come and go.”

Did you catch those last two paragraphs? Tax cuts are to be pursued because they get government out of the way. Not because they result in more government revenue. Never forget that.

A second lesson concerns how we look at tax rates. When tax rates are set and judged according to how much revenue they bring in due to the Laffer Curve—which is how most of today’s tax cutters present them, thereby agreeing with tax hikers that the goal of tax policy is to increase revenue—tax policy can become a mechanism to expand government. The goals of legitimate government—American freedom and prosperity—are left by the wayside. Thus the best case for lower taxes is the moral case—and as Coolidge well understood, a moral tax policy demands tough budgeting.

Clarke's 30-second audio spot seems to take aim at the jurisdiction of the Milwaukee Police Department and the court system.

"Violent crime went up nearly 10% in Milwaukee. Are you the next
victim?" Clarke says. "You don't have to be, but that's your call."

The sheriff says a "soft on crime court system" puts armed criminals
back on area streets, but that residents can get a gun to protect
themselves.

"Now it's the crook who has to wonder what you might do," Clarke
says. "It could be a great equalizer, but you always have to think
survival."

Well, Sheriff Clarke was a guest host on the Mark Belling Late Afternoon Show on WISN radio, Milwaukee, Wisconsin on March 6, 2013. It was a very entertaining and enlightening three hours (minus commercials, of course). I've taken the time to transcribe interesting portions of the show.

Caller (Steve from Cudahy):

I was shocked to hear, you know, turning on the TV last week and seeing, you know, our police chief asking the question, 'Why do we need more than ten bullets in a clip?'. And I thought, you've got to be kidding, you know, I mean the issue--I keep hearing this and no one seems to be saying this on these talk shows, not yours, but as far as, you know, on cable. They keep talking about home defense but the issue isn't home defense or deer hunting. The issue is the Second Amendment, which we can't compromise, was given, and you can back me up on this, this is how I read it, that it's to to protect us from tyrannical government.

Sheriff Clarke:

Exactly. But I've got a better answer, Steve, for that. Why does somebody need a magazine that holds more than ten rounds? Why should people be able to buy ammo over the internet? Why do people need an AR-15? You know what my answer is?

Caller:

What's that?

Sheriff Clarke:

Because they want want one!

Caller:

Yeah.

Sheriff Clarke:

All right? And because the Constitution says they can do it. That's my response to that. They don't--you don't owe me an explanation as to why you want a magazine that holds more than ten rounds. You don't owe me an explanation. And I'm an entity of government. You don't owe the government an explanation. We have enough rules and restrictions on the Second Amendment. If a criminal defendant exercises his Fifth Amendment rights I don't go, 'What do you need an attorney for?' You get him an attorney!

Clarke also expressed a great deal of clarity on his role and who he needs to answer to--and it's NOT politicians!

Those are my constituents in the City of Milwaukee. And I'm responsible. It's not about who responds to calls for service. I'm their voice. I don't work for [Milwaukee] Mayor Barrett, I don't work for [Milwaukee Police Chief] Ed Flynn, I don't work for [Milwaukee County Executive] Chris Abele, I don't work for [Milwaukee County Chief] Judge [Jeffrey] Kremers. I work for the people of this county, they put me here. I don't take orders from them [the politicians].

I'm responsible for the safety of everybody in this county. ... I'm responsible. So I'm offering a vision, for safer streets, safer schools, safer communities, and that we need to be tough on crime. That's my role here. I've got cops, sheriff's deputies, put their lives on the line every time they put that uniform on, and I'm going to have some puke politician come along and talk about well, you guys don't handle that. Are you crazy?

Like I said, I'm the voice of law-abiding citizens all throughout this county. I'm in an environment where other public officials are hiding the truth about crime and violence in this area. I'm going to keep people informed as to what's going on--like I said, I'm their voice. These folks that I mention here, Kremers and Barrett and Abele and Flynn, they're struggling with that, that I occupy the position that I do and I do have the bully pulpit. Like I said, this is not about who responds to what. I'm trying to keep people from being victimized before they are. I won't be lectured to--by Flynn, Barrett, Abele, Kremers, the Journal Sentinel--about what we're spending on crime prevention messages. They're trying to intimidate, that's not going to work with me. I will not be deterred, and I will not be dissuaded, from addressing issues of crime anywhere in Milwaukee County. And this political environment that I'm in. I use different tactics. They're not used to these tactics. They're used to attacking the messenger, attacking the message, and having the messenger go away in either frustration or intimidation. And to silence them. You can't tell people crime is on the rise in Milwaukee County. Oh really? I should do what you want me to do and tell them all is well? Well it's not well.

But when I say those those things, oh, Clarke's critical. Oh yeah, well you know what? Get used to it! Because, in these political fights--and they are political fights--I fight unconventionally. And I keep coming back. And that's the way it's going to be.

Clarke has a well-grounded philosophy on the role of government, and how that affects freedom.

Read your Declaration of Independence. I say that, I try to say that, everywhere I go. That came up, too: Clarke calls for revolution! I didn't call for anything. I trust that law-abiding people, everywhere, but in Milwaukee County, should be empowered to make these decisions for themselves. About how to defend themselves. How to protect themselves and their family. The Castle Doctrine, the Personal Protection Act. I don't fear a law-abiding person with a gun. I fear a career criminal with a gun. When a felon possess a gun, bad things happen. As John Lott talked about, when a law-abiding person owns and possesses a gun, good things happen. Government has got to learn how to let go of power and start trusting its citizens. It's about freedom, all this stuff. The violence in these communities, stressed communities in the City of Milwaukee, people aren't free. You can't even let your kids play outside. You can't even let 'em out of your site.

Final note: I love this guy. Listen to how he finishes the show strong!

You know, Jolene [the show's producer] jumped on me a little bit, cause I didn't read the weather. And again, look out the window if you want to know what's going on, with the weather. I'm sure--is it Justin Zolich? [weather man]--he would, he would agree, just look out the window.

He did finish on a serious note:

Anyway, thanks for joining us today. It's been my pleasure. Honored to be here, I'm honored to serve you. I'm blessed to be in this position to represent my community, what I've done for 35 years. Still have fire in the belly. I'm still going to take the fight where it needs to be fought. And for the people who are struggling with this, the media, and some of the, you know, political class, because I won't go to their side, here's my message: Get used to it. Thanks for being with us today.

Monday, March 11, 2013

I'm not sure why police work seems to attract a certain kind of asshole, the kind of person who delights in exerting authority over others. So I can't explain the following videos, won't even try.

In the first video, the motorcycle rider isn't showing the best judgment in his riding (land positioning, for instance). Nonetheless, this cop is an asshole. You know damn well that if the positions were reversed the cop would still find the other guy at fault.

So the cop parks his bike on the trail, blocking almost half of it, then gives someone a ticket for going around him. And while giving the ticket numerous other people do the exact same thing. Dude, get your fucking motorcycle off of the path! And why is it okay for some people to go around the parked bike but not others? The cop has no idea what he's doing.